International order as a meta-language for colonialism
Heiskanen (2021) addresses international relations as interlingual relations, building on theories of concepts and translation. Leaning on Reinhart Koselleck’s understanding, he perceives concepts as ‘miniature theories’ that help actors make sense of the world. Breaking away from Koselleck’s work and leaning on Jacques Derrida, Heiskanen further sees the spatiotemporal distance between two or more contexts making translation simultaneously necessary and impossible, a situation enabling a ‘meta-language’.
The modern international order functions as the socially recognized meta-language that makes international relations possible globally.
Through these insights, he develops a theoretical understanding of the global constitution of the modern international order where he draws parallels between Marx’s understanding of the exchange of commodities and the translation of linguistic signs. Here, Heiskanen further leans on Ferdinand de Saussure to make a distinction between concrete instances of language, e.g. English, and an overarching signifying system, i.e. language-as-such). Heiskanen argues that the modern international order functions as the socially recognized meta-language, enabling global translatability and making international (or interlingual) relations possible globally. This order is built on asymmetries and contradictions that have diffused through the global political economy of conceptual exchange in the 19th century.
Heiskanen’s arguments are undoubtedly rich and stimulating, but our reading group identified a challenge within the text: the abundance of theoretical discussions introduced by the author. For example, Heiskanen introduces the concepts of ‘co-authoring’ (by Lydia H. Liu), two-level language games (by Einar Widen), and ‘generalising and relativising universalisms’ (by Christopher L. Hill). The reading group felt this abundance occasionally muddied the linkage between his foundational framework and the ensuing analysis. This theoretical density, while intellectually enriching, obscured the pathway from premise to conclusion, leading to moments where the arguments seemed to be lost in the jungle of concepts, as one participant pointed out.
It is also worth noting that Heiskanen’s argument concerning the universality of the Western international order has been previously articulated by post-colonial scholars. Although, Heiskanen does partly engage with post-colonial scholarship, one participant viewed Heiskanen’s approach totalizing, marginalizing non-Western perspectives, whereas another appreciated its philosophical depth, allowing space for contradictions. The group was especially split on Heiskanen’s discussion on the idea of global translability which originates from Western imperialism but now seems to rely on continuous exchange and entanglement rather than Western hegemony to sustain itself. Heiskanen contends that “the universalization of coloniality actually multiplies the potentialities for its overcoming: through the universalization of coloniality, each and every language, each and every region, becomes a potential source of anticolonial critique.” (p. 254)
While Heiskanen discusses the role of exchange and use of Western-originated concepts in the constitution of international order extensively, some participants of our reading group would have wanted to learn more about his thoughts on their use against the prevailing order. When discussing de-colonial pursuits, Heiskanen states that “[t]he ongoing scramble to promote national and regional approaches among IR scholars […] offer[s] the illusion of plurality and equality while leaving the underlying conceptual categories … undisturbed … such plurality is not inherently opposed to the homogenizing tendencies of the universal equivalent. To the contrary, it is the homogenizing impact of the universal equivalent that underpins the global circulation of differences” (p. 252).
This statement prompted questions about Heiskanen’s stance. Was he suggesting that oppression is a necessary condition for resistance, OR simply in favour of oppression? This led to further discussions on the author’s positionality and whether it should have been articulated more explicitly in the article.
Is skillful scholarship about the ability to synthetise complex theoretical perspectives into an easily intelligible form?
Additionally, Heiskanen’s article led us to reflect on what counts as “exemplary” academic writing. We found Heiskanen’s work thought-provoking, as he introduces new authors and research in a manner that allows the reader to become familiar with ongoing theoretical debates, beyond merely providing useful references. While one participant praised Heiskanen’s skill in composing an ideal academic article structure-wise, a few others believed he obscured his arguments with (overly) complex concepts, resulting in a lack of clarity. Another participant pondered whether skillful scholarship is about the ability to synthetise even very complex theoretical perspectives into a form that is easy to comprehend.
Order as a bridge between regional and global governance
Different from the writing style of Heiskanen, as described previously, Kacowicz (2018) articulates his key arguments directly and succinctly in examining the nexus between regional governance (RG) and global governance (GG) from the perspective of Latin America. He develops a typology of four RG-GG linkages, positioning them along a continuum of 1) ‘irrelevance’, 2) ‘conflict’, 3) ‘cooperation’, and 4) ‘harmony’ (p. 67). Further, Kacowicz proposes three alternative explanations for these linkages, attributing them to 1) specific functional issue areas, 2) the role of regional powers, and 3) ideational factors, including the diffusion of norms and identities (p. 75). Additionally, these explanations are complementary rather than mutually exclusive (p. 61).
Our reading appreciated how Kacowicz effectively maps out various regional governance – global governance linkages
Our reading group appreciated how Kacowicz effectively maps out various RG-GG linkages and includes an illustrative table to support his key arguments. However, we also noted a shortfall in adequately justifying the article’s contributions to existing academic debates, with limited discussion on analytical and empirical implications that appear rather late within the text. Moreover, Kacowicz seems to presuppose readers’ familiarity with Latin American contexts despite his article not being published in a journal specialising in Latin American studies. The broad and brief empirical analysis, coupled with the frequent use of abbreviations without providing their full forms, may pose difficulties for general IR readers in assessing the persuasiveness of the typology of the RG-GG nexus and alternative explanations within an empirical context. Another related point raised by a group member was Kacowicz’s empirical focus on economic and security issues, areas of undoubted importance but considered narrow within GG. Questions, thus, arose regarding the framework’s relevance to other governance areas.
Furthermore, Kacowicz claims that the theoretical framework could be applied to other regions, despite acknowledging of the differential weight of theoretical explanations across regions. He particularly emphasizes their high relevance to the regions in the Global South, which traditionally hold a peripheral role in GG. Using Latin America as an example, he argued that its RG effectiveness is compromised by its marginal role in GG and the weak RG-GG nexus (p. 75). However, some participants found these claims ambiguous, pointing out a lack of clarity on why the framework is especially pertinent to the Global South and how a region’s role in GG influences its RG effectiveness.
This critique led to a suggestion for future research to compare regions with varying roles in GG, such as Latin America with a marginal position versus the Nordic or Arctic regions with a more active position. Overall, while Kacowicz offers a valuable framework for understanding RG-GG dynamics, our group sees a need for further empirical studies across diverse regional contexts and governance issues beyond the economic and security domains to test and possibly revise and refine the framework.
References
Heiskanen, J. (2021). Found in translation: The global constitution of the modern international order. International Theory, 13(2), 231–259. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971920000317
Kacowicz, A. M. (2018). Regional Governance and Global Governance: Links and Explanations. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 24(1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02401005
